question about babies

[Guest]

I agree with Vort. If you do, the kid has no option but to live with it. If you don't he can decide later in life if he wants it. (same goes for pierced ears, by the way). So, give the kid the option.

Except that when he's old enough to decide this on his own, it will HURT LIKE THE BLAZING DICKENS.

I use mother's privilege in choosing what kind of milk my sons are going to drink, whether I put him on anti-biotics for earaches or not, or to choose to put him on vaccinations, or to leave him with a babysitter, or have him sit infront of Spongebob for an hour a day, etc. etc. etc. I can choose to get him circumcised too.

Edited February 17, 2014 by anatess

[bytebear]

Except that when he's old enough to decide this on his own, it will HURT LIKE THE BLAZING DICKENS.

I use mother's privilege in choosing what kind of milk my sons are going to drink, whether I put him on anti-biotics for earaches or not, or to choose to put him on vaccinations etc. etc. etc. I can choose to get him circumcised too.

They have pain killers, so that's really not a big deal. Some cultures file down their kids teeth at age 8 or 9 as a rite of passage. I don't recommend it. Circumcision is largely a cultural thing. You choose it because it's the norm in America. As a Jew I understand the need, but I think if we didn't have a history of it as a cultural norm, you would be as appalled as if you were filing down his teeth, or cutting off his earlobes, or some other ritualistic body modification.

But, other than it being a cultural thing, I see no need whatsoever.

[Guest]

Recovery from adult circumcision is much more drawn-out and traumatic than infant circumcision.

Mothering

Ah, martyring.com. So much hysterics and entertainment to be had there.

[Guest]

But, other than it being a cultural thing, I see no need whatsoever.

That's because you didn't grow up in the Philippines. It's definitely not just a cultural thing in the Philippines.

And I don't expect my sons not to be limited by American environment. Which was a good call as they go prancying around the neighborhood pretending to be Crocodile Hunter... and spending months on end in some island devoid of plumbing.

[bytebear]

That's because you didn't grow up in the Philippines. It's definitely not just a cultural thing in the Philippines.

And I don't expect my sons not to be limited by American environment. Which was a good call as they go prancying around the neighborhood pretending to be Crocodile Hunter... and spending months on end in some island devoid of plumbing.

Yes, it's a Philippines cultural thing. It may be more ingrained than in the US, but it's still cultural.

[Jenamarie]

We left the decision up to our sons, the owners of the bodies. If they some day want to remove their foreskins, or if a medical reason for removing them comes up, it can be done. Until then, if it ain't broke, why fix it? We also didn't pierce our daughter's ears. We left it up to her to decide when that would be done.

For me it comes down to bodily integrity. Control over what is done to one's body is a HUGE thing for me. I will not make changes to someone else's body, even my child's body, without their permission, and/or a genuine medical need, and then I make sure they understand exactly what's happening and why. Altering a child's God-given body because *I* think it would "look better" isn't even on the table.

[Bini]

Jenamarie, well said!

And yes, I can't believe that anyone would actually make the argument that removing foreskin due to it looking bad (in their opinion) is a viable reason at all. Wow!

[Bini]

So as choosing a name for your child. But then, we do it all the time. Imagine growing up named Audio Science.

I just learned that there are some cultural groups that don't choose names right away. Interesting.

Secondly, a name can be changed. Permanently HACKING off a body part cannot. Leave that decision to the child.

[Guest]

Yes, it's a Philippines cultural thing. It may be more ingrained than in the US, but it's still cultural.

It definitely is not cultural. We're Catholics not Jews. The Catholic Church has made it clear SINCE 1442 that circumcision is not part of religious ritual.

My brother's pre-med is in Public Health. He is now a neurologist. Yet, he still performs circumcision. For free. He goes with this group of doctors who travel all over the Philippines deworming and circumcising children among other things.

Edited February 17, 2014 by anatess

[Guest]

I just learned that there are some cultural groups that don't choose names right away. Interesting.

Secondly, a name can be changed. Permanently HACKING off a body part cannot. Leave that decision to the child.

A name is more psychologically damaging than circumcision. And, as millions of boys grow up with it and became Prophets, Popes, Presidents, and serial killers, the hacked off body part is surely not sorely missed.

This conversation reminds me of the California bill that requires parents to leave the decision to the child on whether he is male or female.

Edited February 17, 2014 by anatess

[Bini]

A name is more psychologically damaging than circumcision. And, as millions of boys grow up with it and became Prophets, Popes, Presidents, and serial killers, the hacked off body part is not sorely missed.

Weak argument, Anatess.

Let's eliminate the crazies that name their kids' Shark Tank or Lazy River. Let's talk about the more mainstream of us that are trying to make the best decision for our children. Speaking for myself, I'm going to try and stay away from what I perceive as silly or negative names. That's the best I can do. And when it comes to my boys, I will do the same thing, I will not permanently remove any body part for them - regardless of the "what ifs". I'm with Jenamarie, I'm a huge advocate in allowing people to make their own decisions about their bodies.

[Guest]

Weak argument, Anatess.

Let's eliminate the crazies that name their kids' Shark Tank or Lazy River. Let's talk about the more mainstream of us that are trying to make the best decision for our children. Speaking for myself, I'm going to try and stay away from what I perceive as silly or negative names. That's the best I can do. And when it comes to my boys, I will do the same thing, I will not permanently remove any body part for them - regardless of the "what ifs". I'm with Jenamarie, I'm a huge advocate in allowing people to make their own decisions about their bodies.

I have ZERO problems with this. My problem is people, like you, making statements that imply - whether on purpose or by accident - that we parents who choose to circumcise our boys are cruel mutilators of children. The circumcision camp are always put on defense for their decision.

If you notice, nobody in the circumcision camp ever state or imply - whether on purpose or by accident - in these arguments that those who choose not to circumcise their children are cruel tree-hugging parents who would rather have their children risk disease than to brave making a decision for their own children's well-being. It doesn't put the non-circumcised camp on a stage that has to defend the non-circumcised decision.

This is the same exact thing that happens when we have arguments over feeding dogs kibble or raw meat. The kibble camp goes out and says things like "feeding raw meat will kill your dog". The raw camp always gets put on a defense for their decision. On the other hand, raw campers usually just say, "kibble is just fine - as long as you choose the right kibble. We just prefer raw because of what we understand to be good for the dog.", so the kibblers are not put on defense.

This is the same exact thing that happens when we have arguments over pet snakes...

My argument is not weak. I have reasons for circumcising my children. I did not make that decision lightly. If you want, you can ask my 2 boys - aged 10 and 12 - how they feel about it.

Edited February 17, 2014 by anatess

[Bini]

I have ZERO problems with this. My problem is people, like you, making statements that imply - whether on purpose or by accident - that we parents who choose to circumcise our boys are cruel mutilators of children. The circumcision camp are always put on defense for their decision.

I specifically used the word inconsiderate. While "cruel" might be over the top (since parents that circumcise believe it's for the child's best interest), I don't believe "mutilation" is so far off - your wording of mutilate not mine, for the record. The definition to mutilate is to deprive a person or animal of a limb.

If you notice, nobody in the circumcision camp ever state or imply - whether on purpose or by accident - in these arguments that those who choose not to circumcise their children are cruel tree-hugging parents who would rather have their children risk disease than to brave making a decision for their own children's well-being. It doesn't put the non-circumcised camp on a stage that has to defend the non-circumcised decision.

The risk you speak of is virtually a non-issue if you are living in a modernised society with modern medicine. (The "tree-hugging" was a funny jab, though.)

We don't put newborns or toddlers into surgery to remove un-used parts because it "may" cause a problem in the future. We let them be, live their life, and if it becomes an issue in the future - then they can sign the release form to undergo surgery to remove their appendix.

This is the same exact thing that happens when we have arguments over feeding dogs kibble or raw meat. The kibble camp goes out and says things like "feeding raw meat will kill your dog". The raw camp always gets put on a defense for their decision. On the other hand, raw campers usually just say, "kibble is just fine - as long as you choose right kibble. We just prefer raw because of what we understand to be good for the dog.", so the kibblers are not put on defense.

I'm not getting into the canine debates.

This is the same exact thing that happens when we have arguments over pet snakes...

Or this debate, either.

[Guest]

I specifically used the word inconsiderate. While "cruel" might be over the top (since parents that circumcise believe it's for the child's best interest), I don't believe "mutilation" is so far off - your wording of mutilate not mine, for the record. The definition to mutilate is to deprive a person or animal of a limb.

The risk you speak of is virtually a non-issue if you are living in a modernised society with modern medicine. (The "tree-hugging" was a funny jab, though.)

We don't put newborns or toddlers into surgery to remove un-used parts because it "may" cause a problem in the future. We let them be, live their life, and if it becomes an issue in the future - then they can sign the release form to undergo surgery to remove their appendix.

Here it is again... attack attack attack.

By the way, do you neuter your dogs?

[dahlia]

My husband was sick as a newborn and wasn't circumcised. He was adamant that our son be circumcised because he felt that being other wise was a pain, hygiene issues, looking the same as other guys in the shower, etc. He hated it.

My son is still debating what he would do if he had a boy, but is leaning toward the natural look.

[Swiper]

I'm opposed to circumcision of infants as it is irreversible and there usually exist no medical justification for it. Nature intended males to have foreskin, let it be. In my home country, the procedure is illegal and only Jews and Muslims can get a religious exemption from the law and have it done. Law makers are discussing the possibility of removing this religious exemption and make it completely illegal unless determined to be medically necessary.

[Vort]

A name is more psychologically damaging than circumcision.

What an absurd proclamation. I challenge you to produce any evidence of such a claim.

[Vort]

I have ZERO problems with this. My problem is people, like you, making statements that imply - whether on purpose or by accident - that we parents who choose to circumcise our boys are cruel mutilators of children.

I don't know about "cruel", but the "mutilator" part is absolutely beyond denying. You permanently remove an irreplaceable body part from a helpless infant, without any medical need or reasonable justification (beyond "Well, if they choose to be promiscuous or never shower when they grow up, they will have small statistical advantage in avoiding disease").

However you, um, slice it, that's mutilation.

[Vort]

Here it is again... attack attack attack.

The circumcision camp is the one mutilating (your word) their children.

By the way, do you neuter your dogs?

You compare dogs to children? Nice.

[Guest]

A little tip: if you wish to have someone who is pro-circumcision listen to your point of view, don't throw around hyperbole like "mutilate" and "hack". I promise, that's when people begin to utterly ignore you.

[Swiper]

My husband was sick as a newborn and wasn't circumcised. He was adamant that our son be circumcised because he felt that being other wise was a pain, hygiene issues, looking the same as other guys in the shower, etc. He hated it.

Hygiene issues? It's not difficult to keep clean. Takes like a second in the shower. Looking back, my only complaint would be that my parents never taught me about cleaning it properly and I had to discover the cleaning issue myself at the age of 9.

[Vort]

A little tip: if you wish to have someone who is pro-circumcision listen to your point of view, don't throw around hyperbole like "mutilate" and "hack". I promise, that's when people begin to utterly ignore you.

Good advice, but take note:

1. anatess, not I, introduced the word "mutilation".

2. The name-calling and hard feelings were generated by a pro-cut-the-baby's-penis person, not someone calling for leaving the penis intact.

Suppose we had the tradition of cutting off the little toe. Statisticians like MoE would doubtless be quick to point out that there is little if any statistical difference in performance between those who had been "toed" and those strange-looking untoed individuals. And without the little toe, the pro-toers would point out, athlete's foot between the small toe and the next toe (the most common place for severe athlete's foot) is all but non-existent. The odors are eliminated, too! See the great benefits? Some infants end up having to have toes surgically removed anyway, and this avoids that whole issue!

Seriously, would anyone here accept that as a reason for routinely cutting off an infant's toe? Then why would you possibly accept the same reasoning for a baby's sex organs?

How about this?

Leave your son's penis alone. If he wants to cut part of it off, let HIM do it when he's an adult.

But what if you've already cut off your son's foreskin (or had it done)? What can you do about it then?

Easy. You can stop propagating such a barbaric practice in the next generation. Let later generations look back in horror at what their great-grandparents used to do to their son's penises in an attempt to be helpful, rather than continuing the practice that long. The sooner routine infant circumcision dies out, the better for us all.

[Bini]

Vort, I especially appreciate your latter statement! It needed to be said.

[Swiper]

Wow, I finally agree 100% with Vort. I guess it's a first for everything.

[Guest]

barbaric practice

Do you think the God of Jacob felt that way?